Comment by fooker

4 months ago

zfs on Linux has not been production ready for decades. People have lost data from it. There's no real reason to allow the default installer to do this.

If you understand the risks, you can do it yourself.

6 comments

fooker

Reply
yjftsjthsd-h  4 months ago

> zfs on Linux has not been production ready for decades. People have lost data from it.

I don't think that's true. Other than with ZFS-native encryption, which I grant has been less reliable, it's been rock solid for a very long time. And I've run >1PB of postgres databases on it professionally, so I feel fairly comfortable in that assertion.

> There's no real reason to allow the default installer to do this.

The default Ubuntu installer at least used to support ZFS, which is the point.

  • fooker  4 months ago

    If you Google zfs Linux data loss, you can find many posts about this. Including one lengthy discussion on HN.

    Also, you are not the typical user installing the OS from the default installer. I am not saying ZFS is bad, but not including it in the default installer is no big deal.

    • yjftsjthsd-h  4 months ago

      So funny thing. I was planning to agree and write something about how you can find data loss stories for literally any filesystem, but the relative frequency and nature of those stories is important to differentiate.

      However.

      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22005181 which appears to contain zero stories of losing data on ZFS, although there's a bunch of stories about BTRFS doing so. Most of the remaining results are news stories about a single bug from 2023 and one story about ZFS's native encryption having problems (which I grant is a footgun).